BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

26 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 195clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai409Delhi325Karnataka99Jaipur91Kolkata75Chennai54Bangalore46Chandigarh46Calcutta36Raipur35Pune26Hyderabad25Nagpur19Indore13Surat12Rajkot12Visakhapatnam11Ahmedabad10Lucknow6Varanasi5Guwahati5Amritsar4Telangana4Jodhpur3Panaji2Agra1SC1Jabalpur1Dehradun1Cuttack1Patna1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 14844Section 143(3)38Section 14718Section 6815Addition to Income14Disallowance13Section 143(1)8Section 143(2)6Section 133A6

CO-OPERATION METALS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2320/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

195 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has upheld the disallowance of entire expenses claimed on account of bogus purchases? 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without appreciating

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

Section 1316
Survey u/s 133A6
Bogus Purchases2

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. COOPERATION METALS, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2263/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

195 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has upheld the disallowance of entire expenses claimed on account of bogus purchases? 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without appreciating

CO-OPERATION METALS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2319/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

195 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has upheld the disallowance of entire expenses claimed on account of bogus purchases? 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without appreciating

CO-OPERATION METALS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2321/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

195 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has upheld the disallowance of entire expenses claimed on account of bogus purchases? 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without appreciating

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. COOPERATION METALS, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2271/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

195 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has upheld the disallowance of entire expenses claimed on account of bogus purchases? 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without appreciating

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. COOPERATION METALS, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2262/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

195 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has upheld the disallowance of entire expenses claimed on account of bogus purchases? 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without appreciating

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2241/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

bogus purchase bills. Ld. DR submitted before the Bench that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in restricting the profit margin to 12.5% against the principle of section 68 and 69C of the IT Act. Ld. DR also submitted before the Bench that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2239/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

bogus purchase bills. Ld. DR submitted before the Bench that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in restricting the profit margin to 12.5% against the principle of section 68 and 69C of the IT Act. Ld. DR also submitted before the Bench that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195

TRIMURTI FURNANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2510/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

TRIMURTI FURNANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2512/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

ANITA SANJAY AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2622/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

ANITA SANJAY AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2623/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

SHRAWAN KESHAVLAL AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2626/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

SHRAWAN KESHAVLAL AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2627/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

SANJAY SHRAWAN AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2630/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

ANITA SANJAY AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2624/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

SANJAY SHRAWAN AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2628/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

SHRAWAN KESHAVLAL AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2625/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

SANJAY SHRAWAN AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2629/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

TRIMURTI FURNANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2511/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held